The Evaluation of Technological Activities and Products. An Overlooked Concern in Research Assessment Reform

Current research assessment reform movements advocate for recognizing the full range of academic contributions, including outputs beyond traditional publications. This article examines how technological activities and products (TAPs) are evaluated within Argentina’s CONICET research career system. Drawing on 421 peer review reports in applied fields (veterinary science, civil engineering, and computer science), we analyze the place of TAPs in evaluation discourse and the challenges they pose. Combining lexicometric and qualitative analysis, this research shows that TAPs are rarely central to evaluations, often overshadowed by publications and other conventional outputs. Where TAPs are addressed, reviewers express difficulties due to insufficient documentation, inconsistencies across sources, and uncertainty about originality or relevance. These issues reflect both procedural shortcomings and a lack of shared criteria. Our findings show that the goal of valuing diverse contributions remains difficult to implement in practice: TAPs represent a category where consensus is weak, and expectations are unclear. Reform efforts must distinguish between technical limitations in evaluation design and deeper disagreements over what constitutes academic merit—especially in applied research contexts. We argue that the evaluation of TAPs constitutes a distinct object of study, analytically separate from social impact, and deserving of specific attention within broader debates on responsible research assessment.